JOY JOSEPH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge, doubting the correctness of the decision in Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala,2007 4 KerLT 149. Before referring to the legal question to be decided, we will first advert to the skeletal facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner constructed a residential building having a plinth area of 292.64 square metres. The construction was completed in 1996. The building tax leviable under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was assessed as per Ext.P2 proceedings of the Tahsildar, Meenachil. The said amount was paid by the petitioner.

(3.) Later, the petitioner made an additional construction to the said building, having a plinth area of 20.77 square metres, making the total plinth area of the building to 313.41 square metres. Under Section 5(4) of the Act, building tax was again assessed and Ext.P4 notice was served on him. He paid the amount so demanded. Later, proposing to levy luxury tax under Section 5A of the Act, Ext. P5 notice was served on the petitioner. He filed Ext.P6 objection. But, overruling his objection, by Ext.P7, he was held liable to pay Rs. 2,000/- as luxury tax from the year 2000-01 onwards. Aggrieved by the said levy, he preferred Ext.P10 appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The R.D.O rejected the appeal. The petitioner attempted a revision before the District Collector and the same was dismissed by Ext.PI 1 order. Being aggrieved by the levy and collection of luxury tax under Section 5A of the Act, this writ petition was filed. The petitioner relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala,2007 4 KerLT 149. It was a case where a building was constructed in the year 1992-93, having a plinth area of 105 square metres. Later, the owner made an additional construction. The total plinth area, thereupon, came to be 294.56 square metres. Since the additional construction was completed after 1.4.1999, the petitioner therein was called upon to pay luxury tax. The learned Judge held that Section 5A of the Act does not have any retrospective effect and if only the additional construction made after 1-4-1999 exceeds 278.7 square metres, luxury tax can be collected and that too in relation to the additional plinth area. The learned Judge who heard this writ petition felt that the said decision requires reconsideration. The learned Single Judge took the view that the principle behind Sub-section (4) of Section 5 will apply in the case of assessment of luxury tax under Section 5A also. Since the decision in Radhakrishnan's case (supra) failed to advert to Section 5(4), the learned Judge felt that the decision requires reconsideration.